ETWARI SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 395 of 2022
[ Against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2022 and Order of
sentence dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 76/2016 ]
Etwari Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Janki
Singh, resident of Village – Jhanjhuko Dangamahuwa,
P.O. and P.S. – Peterwar, District-Bokaro.
… … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
…..
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
…..
P R E S E N T
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
JUDGMENT
rd
Dated: 3 November, 2026
By Court:- The instant criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2022 and order of
sentence dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in
Sessions Trial No. 76/2016, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned
counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Abhay
1
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. representing the State
and have gone through the materials available on
record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
3.
case will not fall within Section 300 of the I.P.C.,
rather it is culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, as there was no intention to cause death of
the deceased. He further submits that though the
injuries were on the head, but there is only one injury
and the Doctor has not opined that it seems sufficient
in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also
submits that from the evidence itself, it is clear that
dispute arose between the parties on spur of moment
and one blow was given. Learned counsel submits
that there are eye-witnesses of the said occurrence,
which could not be burst aside. It is further submitted
that they are reliable witness. He submits that
although assault was with an axe on head but there
was no intention to commit murder of the deceased,
as the entire incident occurred on spur of moment.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the
appellant had come with arm to assault the deceased.
4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State, opposes the
prayer and submits that the prosecution has been
able to prove that the appellant gave fatal blow on the
head of the deceased and the death was homicidal.
2
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
The prosecution case as based upon the fardbeyan of
5.
the informant Somay Besra (P.W.-7) is that on
22.12.2015 at about 4:00 P.M., he was working in his
filed situated by the side of his house. The accused
Etwari had come to his house and he along with his
father sat on the cot in the courtyard. Thereafter some
altercation took place between them and Etwari Singh
assaulted his father at his head by axe. Seeing that,
the informant’s children started raising alarm.
Heaving heard hulla, the informant rushed to his
house and saw that his father was lying on the cot in
pool of blood and the accused Etwari Singh was
making axe blow over him. Thereafter, the informant
snatched axe from him and called the village doctor
on mobile. The doctor came and declared him dead.
The informant claims that the accused caused death
of his father by inflicting axe injury over his head.
6. On the basis of fardbeyan, Petarwar P.S. Case No. 198
of 2015 was registered for the offence under Sections
302 of the I.P.C. and after investigation, the I.O. of the
case submitted charge sheet against the accused.
After taking cognizance, the case was committed the
court of Sessions, where charge were framed against
the accused for the aforesaid offence.
7. The prosecution has altogether examined eight (08)
witnesses, who are as follows:-
3
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
P.W.-1 : Nuni Bala Devi.
P.W.-2 : Fulmani Devi.
P.W.-3 : Dhuma Kisku.
P.W.-4 : Birso Besra.
P.W.-5 : Dr. Bikash Kumar.
P.W.-6 : Maheshwar Manjhi.
P.W.-7 : Somay Besra (Informant).
P.W.-8 : S.I. Santosh Kumar (I.O.).
8. Some documents were also exhibited in this case,
which are as follows:-
Exhibit-1 : Endorsement on Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/1 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/2 : Signature of Birso Besra on
Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Seizure List.
Exhibit-2/1 : Signature of Birso Besra on Seizure
List.
Exhibit-2/2 : Signature of Maheshwar Besra on
Seizure List.
Exhibit-3 : Post Mortem Report of deceased
Sawan Manjhi.
Material Exhibit-I : Seized axe.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial
court has recorded the statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused in his
defence has denied the occurrence.
4
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
The trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide its
10.
judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as
delineated in the opening paragraph of this judgment,
which has been challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
After hearing the parties, we have also gone through
11.
the evidence documentary and oral evidence.
12. The F.I.R. was at the instance of P.W.-7, who stated
that he was working in his vegetable garden on the
west side of his house, when children shouting then
he rushed towards his courtyard and saw his father
(deceased) with blood on his head and sustaining
injuries and appellant standing there with axe. He
stated that he snatched the axe from the hands of this
appellant and caught him. Thereafter, he called the
Doctor, who came and declared the injured, dead.
13. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the eye witnesses. From
perusal of oral statements of both the witnesses, there
is no doubt that they have seen the occurrence, as the
presence of P.W.-2 is proved from the evidence of
P.W.-1, who has stated that P.W.-2 is also present.
Both the witnesses stated that this appellant came to
his house and asked the deceased to provide him
liquor. On hearing the refusal, the appellant with an
axe gave blow on the head of the deceased, which
fractured the head. The doctor came, but declared
5
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
him dead. They identified the appellant in the dock. In
cross-examination, P.W.-2 denied the fact that the
deceased used to running a business of liquor and
this appellant used to forbade him from selling the
same, which resulted in this incident. There was no
previous enmity between the parties. It is also clear
that there is nothing in the evidence that he had come
with any weapon to assault the deceased with any
intention. It is apparent that since the appellant
demanded liquor and the deceased refused, a blow
was given on head. The doctor (P.W.-5), who stated
that there is incised wound on temporal parietal
region on the head and there is lacerated wound on
the occipital region, but he has never mentioned that
whether these injuries are sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature.
14. Section 299 of the I.P.C. defines “culpable homicide”,
which reads as follows:-
299. Culpable homicide.—
Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a)A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the
intention of thereby causing death, or with
the knowledge that death is likely to be
thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be
firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has
committed the offence of culpable homicide.
6
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
(b)A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not
know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it
to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to
fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B
may be guilty of no offence; but A has
committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c)A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill
and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A
not knowing that he was there. Here,
although A was doing an unlawful act, he was
not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not
intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an
act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1 .— A person who causes bodily
injury to another who is labouring under a
disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and
thereby accelerates the death of that other,
shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2 .— Where death is caused by
bodily injury, the person who causes such
bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused
the death, although by resorting to proper
remedies and skilful treatment the death
might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 .— The causing of the death of
child in the mother’s womb is not homicide.
But it may amount to culpable homicide to
cause the death of a living child, if any part of
that child has been brought forth, though the
child may not have breathed or been
completely born.
15. As per aforesaid definition, there should be intention
to cause death or with intention to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death. Thus, from the evidence, we find that in this
case, the appellant did not have any intention to
cause death, but he was intending to cause bodily
injury as is likely to cause death. Thus, this case
7
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
comes within purview of Section 299 of the I.P.C.,
which is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
16. None of the ingredients of Section 300 of the I.P.C. is
attracted in this case, rather, we find that this is a
case where first part of Section 304 of I.P.C. can be
applied.
17. Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. reads as follows:-
“ 304. Punishment for culpable homicide
not amounting to murder . – Whoever
commits culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing
death or of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death;”
18. As per aforesaid provision and reading with the
evidence, which have been discussed above, we find
that this is a case where the intention of the appellant
was to cause such bodily injury as is likely cause
death. Thus, in our opinion, the appellant’s conviction
under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable and
is converted under Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C.
The punishment for Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. is
19.
imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either
description, which may extend to 10 years. Thus,
considering the fact that the appellant is in custody
8
2026:JHHC:32230-DB
since more than 10 years 10 months, we inflict the
sentence of 10 years to the appellant.
20. In view of the discussions and findings, we set aside
the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of
the I.P.C. and hold the appellant guilty for committing
offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the
I.P.C. In our opinion, the interest of justice will be
served by sentencing the appellant to the period
already undergone by him in custody.
21. This appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed with the
modification in the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence of the appellant, as stated above.
22. The appellant, above named, shall be released from
custody forthwith, if not wanted in connection with
any other case.
23. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
24. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned for information and needful.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava , J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
rd
Dated, the 3 November, 2026 .
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
9